Should you be looking for some more written words on Bethesda's critically acclaimed The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, we have rounded up two more editorials on the Maryland-based developer's fantasy open-world title, starting with GameInformer, that aims to counter the claim of Skyrim being a "single-player MMO":

Skyrim is about making your mark on the world.

Blizzard can cut together all the in-engine cutscenes and phased zones it likes, but it's simply not possible to equal the depth of interaction a single-player game is capable of with today's MMO technology. Bethesda gives you all the tools to break their game, and invites you to do with Skyrim what you will. If you want to kill all the quest NPCs in town and make a big ol' corpse pile in the town square, hey, you're the hero. Do what you want. Save the world, ignore the suffering of the common folk, just go exploring the countryside whatever your heroic fantasy is, you can act it out in Skyrim. Sure, you killed the Lich King in WoW. So did everyone else. Don't you feel special?

Skyrim is not about game systems and power growth.

I know it sounds silly, but hear me out. Yes, Skyrim presents all the usual RPG hooks to entice players to get more powerful. Perks are great, and finding an awesome new weapon is a wonderful feeling. But becoming more powerful is rarely an objective unto itself like it is for many MMO players in the endgame. I don't dive into a haunted barrow in Skyrim because I want the loot. I do it because I want to see what's down there, and experience whatever story the decrepit crypt has to tell. I pursue long, difficult quest chains because I honestly want to help the deposed beggar-king get justice (or perhaps to stick it to the arrogant, scheming nobles currently in charge), not because there's a blue item at the end of it. The difference between that and the approach I have to running Stonecore for the nth time (because it has a blue item at the end, duh) could not be more stark. Not least because...

Then we move on to Capsule Computers which explains why, despite being wildly successful, Skyrim shouldn't be thought as the game "for everyone":

With such immense freedom, The Elder Scrolls fits perfectly in on the opposite side of the open-world spectrum. For arguements sake let's compare the difference between Skyrim and two other types of open-world games; Grand Theft Auto and Assassin's Creed. Now I am not saying that one is better than the other, I am simply stating that each signify a specific type of the open-world game.

Assassin's Creed sits on the direct opposite side of Skyrim and features an open-world that is backed by an incredibly strong and deep storyline that encourages the player to follow the plot instead of focusing solely upon open-world mayhem. In the middle of the spectrum sits Grand Theft Auto, a franchise that features open-world carnage along side a storyline. The story however is heavily overshadowed by the open-world mayhem, to the point that most people who play Grand Theft Auto only play it to just go on killing sprees and create absolute anarchy.

So how does Skyrim fit into this equation? Well it's quite simple, Skyrim and The Elder Scrolls series in general does not focus on a straight forward traditional plotline that signifies the games beginning and end such as that seen in Assassin's Creed. This lack of storyline emphasis or conclusive ending can deter players from Skyrim. However it can also engage them more than any storyline could.